|
On November 03 2016 04:28 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:24 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:23 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 04:20 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:17 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 04:14 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:10 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 04:01 mahrgell wrote:
@Foreman
Now that you noticed your misread. Are you still going after Calix, or have you shifted your focus on NU?
Would the argument you made for Calix also apply to NU? Or where do you see the difference there? The fact he isn't voting ExO does not make his push any less disingenuous. Knock knock, Calix is here, asking you to read my NU case like a good dear. Is my NU case also disingenuous? If so, how? Considering you've yet to acquit yourself for that shady ExO push, I'm not concerned about your NU push when he isn't even here to respond to it. Why do I need to 'acquit myself' for you to take my NU case seriously? You either agree with it or you don't. My 'credibility' has nothing to do with wherever you think I make valid points on NU. Poor reaction from you. Lol whatever dude. I'm not wasting my time humoring scum, and right now that's what you are to me. If you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you take me seriously. Ah, it's the MS classic of "you're totally scum so I'm ignoring everything you say" shtick. How anyone has such a strong read that they are willing to dismiss everything that I say post-scum-read with less than 200 posts in the entire thread is beyond me. So do explain, how have you concluded that I'm so scummy this early on? You've yet to address any of my points against you with anything but hand-waving. My case did not hinge on your vote, so that correction was a minor note, not a read changer.
Case, what case? You are doing a piss-poor job of trying to convince anyone that I'm scum. You're not reconsidering your read or considering wherever you are wrong.
You're not doing anything but using "Calix so scum" as a reason to ignore my NU case entirely.
Why do you only bring up that I've 'ignored' your points now when I'm asking you to consider my points on NU?
|
On November 03 2016 04:32 mahrgell wrote:gosh Calix, can we please stop post synced? Also after what I read from you last game I'm afraid of myself, if I share your thoughts... I don't want to be like you  Sorry.
It's ironic because you're insinuating that I am a bad player...but I'm pretty sure that you misinterpreted what Foreman said. He was calling me scum, not you.
|
Man, having everyone be a bunch of slow-pokes with typing is making me bored. I'm just going to vote now.
##vote NeverUnlucky
|
On November 03 2016 04:40 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:35 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:32 mahrgell wrote:gosh Calix, can we please stop post synced? Also after what I read from you last game I'm afraid of myself, if I share your thoughts... I don't want to be like you Sorry. It's ironic because you're insinuating that I am a bad player...but I'm pretty sure that you misinterpreted what Foreman said. He was calling me scum, not you. I am aware that he is only going after you. But as I share your concern regarding NU... And would like the same answer to be answered... He refuses to answer me, because he considers you to be scum. I don't agree on the policy of "I don't talk to who I consider scum". I consider this antitown, but I understand interpretations on this may differ. But I really dislike the policy of "I don't talk to you, because a player I consider to be scum shared your concerns". This is for sure antitown. So either he considers me scum too, or he is just antitown. Both conclusions are not really giving him any plus points in my book.
It is extremely anti-town to ignore anyone save for red-checked players or the like. It shows that he is not willing to reconsider his reads and will be prone to tunnel-vision. (this is something I am specifically trying to avoid)
I remain uncertain on Foreman. I'm inclined to scum-read him purely for his pathetic dismissal of my NU case (aka the most substantial post made this game) but I'm biased there as I think my case is pretty good. Furthermore, some of his posts have minor town-tells in them. (nothing convincing though) Concluding null as it stands.
|
On November 03 2016 04:43 mahrgell wrote:Oh, and about me saying you are bad. Not what I meant. You are just sometimes very... overzealous and tunneled. This seems to weaken your own reads, but at the same time stirs up enough dust for others to make valuable reads, so I don't even consider it a bad thing. I usually try to stay more distanced and openminded though.  And use your stirred up chaos :D
Trying out a more level-headed play-style this game...for my standards anyway. I will still be the person doing most of the moving-and-shaking shenanigans while everyone sits around with their cups of tea and whines
That's not a dismissal of your play-style, however. Having different players/ styles in a game results in a better game so I agree that it's a good thing.
|
On November 03 2016 04:44 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:40 Calix wrote:
Man, having everyone be a bunch of slow-pokes with typing is making me bored. I'm just going to vote now.
##vote NeverUnlucky Didn't you want to wait until NU comes back and answers? While I support your points about him, I still want to see his answer before I can support this push. And for the time being, I'm more looking at Foreman than at NU anyway.
I'm impatient and nobody else is doing anything.
On November 03 2016 04:46 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:44 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:40 mahrgell wrote:On November 03 2016 04:35 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:32 mahrgell wrote:gosh Calix, can we please stop post synced? Also after what I read from you last game I'm afraid of myself, if I share your thoughts... I don't want to be like you Sorry. It's ironic because you're insinuating that I am a bad player...but I'm pretty sure that you misinterpreted what Foreman said. He was calling me scum, not you. I am aware that he is only going after you. But as I share your concern regarding NU... And would like the same answer to be answered... He refuses to answer me, because he considers you to be scum. I don't agree on the policy of "I don't talk to who I consider scum". I consider this antitown, but I understand interpretations on this may differ. But I really dislike the policy of "I don't talk to you, because a player I consider to be scum shared your concerns". This is for sure antitown. So either he considers me scum too, or he is just antitown. Both conclusions are not really giving him any plus points in my book. It is extremely anti-town to ignore anyone save for red-checked players or the like. It shows that he is not willing to reconsider his reads and will be prone to tunnel-vision. (this is something I am specifically trying to avoid) I remain uncertain on Foreman. I'm inclined to scum-read him purely for his pathetic dismissal of my NU case (aka the most substantial post made this game) but I'm biased there as I think my case is pretty good. Furthermore, some of his posts have minor town-tells in them. (nothing convincing though) Concluding null as it stands. How can you be so hesitant to scum read anyone? All of your reads come built in with "but I might be wrong." You back pedal on everything you've said so far and leave yourself a way out. Almost as if you are afraid to hard scum read somebody because you know you are lying. I'm quite convinced you are scum leaving yourself as many outs as possible.
That's not back-pedaling. I provided arguments for both sides for Foreman before concluding null.
I have never had problems with hardcore scum-reading players in games as scum. You are conflating "measured reads" with uncertainty. I have specifically stated that I am NOT tunneling and that I am changing my style this game.
Please read before making ignorant statements.
I also want a comment on NU's case. I will not be impressed if you ignore it a la Foreman.
|
On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please...
Then do something that will make AI posts happen.
What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly?
|
On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:53 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please... Then do something that will make AI posts happen. What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly? What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet?
To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course.
What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it?
|
As a side note, I was supposed to be posting LESS this game. Well fuck that.
As always, most of the other players are lazy arseholes so I guess it's my job to carry the town discussion yet again and get shanked N1.
Boring.
|
On November 03 2016 04:58 Skynx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 04:56 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:53 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please... Then do something that will make AI posts happen. What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly? What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet? To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course. What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it? Add something constructive when i find opportunity to do so. Like I'm doing now, stopping you guys go overboard with surjective NAI stuff cuz it really means absolutely nothing what you guys accuse each other for in past few pages 
Oh wonderful, that means that you can tell us how my case on NU doesn't show scum-indicative behaviour
Do you have any reads at all? I'm skeptical that you have no initial impressions at all.
|
On November 03 2016 04:59 Foreman wrote:
Calix, talk to me about marghell.
What do you make of his sheeping and buddying?
How is he sheeping? He said he agreed with my case with some additional comments.
I was initially paranoid that he was trying to pocket me. That was my fear until he made the "lol I don't want to think like Calix" comment. That seems too weird to be a buddying attempt to me.
Why would mahrgell be scum if I am town exactly?
|
Actually that post where he's like "pls don't mind-meld with me" was pretty weird because we didn't actually have the same thought process on the posts. (I didn't get that impression anyway)
But that's the only post that I found weird from mahrgell so I'm fine with him for now.
|
On November 03 2016 05:05 Skynx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:00 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:58 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:56 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:53 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please... Then do something that will make AI posts happen. What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly? What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet? To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course. What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it? Add something constructive when i find opportunity to do so. Like I'm doing now, stopping you guys go overboard with surjective NAI stuff cuz it really means absolutely nothing what you guys accuse each other for in past few pages Oh wonderful, that means that you can tell us how my case on NU doesn't show scum-indicative behaviour Do you have any reads at all? I'm skeptical that you have no initial impressions at all. Here is what happened; Calix sr Exo (gif stuff) Exo sr Calix (doesn't like his push) Everyone sr Everyone (because all pushes are very surjective and doesn't mean anything and everyone is aware of that so might aswell sr the others) What you are asking right now makes sense in that regard as me suggesting you guys pushing NAI stuff on eachother means I should also sr you guys but its just not right and this is all really nothing productive in the end.
Fact-check. I never stated a scum-read on ExO.
"all pushes are very subjective" - It's Day 1. Of course they are going to be 'subjective'. In fact, almost every single push in the history of mafia is 'subjective'. That doesn't mean you just do nothing since town has to be proactive to gain information, etc etc. This is all very obvious stuff so I won't drone on.
With that in mind, your approach is very hard to understand to me.
|
On November 03 2016 05:11 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:05 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 05:00 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:58 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:56 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:53 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please... Then do something that will make AI posts happen. What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly? What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet? To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course. What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it? Add something constructive when i find opportunity to do so. Like I'm doing now, stopping you guys go overboard with surjective NAI stuff cuz it really means absolutely nothing what you guys accuse each other for in past few pages Oh wonderful, that means that you can tell us how my case on NU doesn't show scum-indicative behaviour Do you have any reads at all? I'm skeptical that you have no initial impressions at all. Here is what happened; Calix sr Exo (gif stuff) Exo sr Calix (doesn't like his push) Everyone sr Everyone (because all pushes are very surjective and doesn't mean anything and everyone is aware of that so might aswell sr the others) What you are asking right now makes sense in that regard as me suggesting you guys pushing NAI stuff on eachother means I should also sr you guys but its just not right and this is all really nothing productive in the end. Here is what happened: Skynx entered thread Skynx complained about unproductive content Skynx provided unproductive content What you are doing right now is worse than anything you've complained about, because you should be of the mindset that providing even more unproductive content would only make our situation worse, given your remarks.
Last paragraph is the first thing that Foreman's posted that I really like.
|
Stating that someone's illogical =/= scum-read, Skynx dear.
As for mahrgell, if you're using mind melds to inform a read then that's fine. But from my point of view, I don't get the same impression when it's vice versa. I would have to see you post things first that I agreed with before I would make that read. It's mostly been you agreeing with me if I recall correctly so I can see where you're coming from in terms of perspective.
|
On November 03 2016 05:24 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:14 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:11 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 05:05 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 05:00 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:58 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:56 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:53 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:50 Skynx wrote:
None of what happened so far is AI guys please... Then do something that will make AI posts happen. What is the point of sitting around and complaining that people are making early reads exactly? What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet? To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course. What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it? Add something constructive when i find opportunity to do so. Like I'm doing now, stopping you guys go overboard with surjective NAI stuff cuz it really means absolutely nothing what you guys accuse each other for in past few pages Oh wonderful, that means that you can tell us how my case on NU doesn't show scum-indicative behaviour Do you have any reads at all? I'm skeptical that you have no initial impressions at all. Here is what happened; Calix sr Exo (gif stuff) Exo sr Calix (doesn't like his push) Everyone sr Everyone (because all pushes are very surjective and doesn't mean anything and everyone is aware of that so might aswell sr the others) What you are asking right now makes sense in that regard as me suggesting you guys pushing NAI stuff on eachother means I should also sr you guys but its just not right and this is all really nothing productive in the end. Here is what happened: Skynx entered thread Skynx complained about unproductive content Skynx provided unproductive content What you are doing right now is worse than anything you've complained about, because you should be of the mindset that providing even more unproductive content would only make our situation worse, given your remarks. Last paragraph is the first thing that Foreman's posted that I really like. This begs the question... What do you object to in the preceding paragraph?
Nothing. It's a summary of Skynx's behaviour which anyone can do. Nothing to note there.
I used the intensifier 'really' to make it clear that I liked the concluding paragraph in particular.
|
On November 03 2016 05:29 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:27 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:24 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 05:14 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:11 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 05:05 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 05:00 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:58 Skynx wrote:On November 03 2016 04:56 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 04:54 Skynx wrote:
[quote]
What is the point of spamming bunch of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with anything other than increasing postcount for people that are not here yet? To generate conversation so that the not-yet-here people have something constructive to add, of course. What is your strategy to find scum if we're doing a poor job of it? Add something constructive when i find opportunity to do so. Like I'm doing now, stopping you guys go overboard with surjective NAI stuff cuz it really means absolutely nothing what you guys accuse each other for in past few pages Oh wonderful, that means that you can tell us how my case on NU doesn't show scum-indicative behaviour Do you have any reads at all? I'm skeptical that you have no initial impressions at all. Here is what happened; Calix sr Exo (gif stuff) Exo sr Calix (doesn't like his push) Everyone sr Everyone (because all pushes are very surjective and doesn't mean anything and everyone is aware of that so might aswell sr the others) What you are asking right now makes sense in that regard as me suggesting you guys pushing NAI stuff on eachother means I should also sr you guys but its just not right and this is all really nothing productive in the end. Here is what happened: Skynx entered thread Skynx complained about unproductive content Skynx provided unproductive content What you are doing right now is worse than anything you've complained about, because you should be of the mindset that providing even more unproductive content would only make our situation worse, given your remarks. Last paragraph is the first thing that Foreman's posted that I really like. This begs the question... What do you object to in the preceding paragraph? Nothing. It's a summary of Skynx's behaviour which anyone can do. Nothing to note there. I used the intensifier 'really' to make it clear that I liked the concluding paragraph in particular. I was just curious because the first set up the second, but your comment looked like you had a completely different take on the first which looked weird to me.
Wonderful. Isn't it great to resolve things instead of stone-walling me because of a scum-read?
Now that we're being more civil, care to:
A) Reiterate those points against me which you think I ignored?
B) Actually consider my NU case?
|
On November 03 2016 05:38 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 03:29 Foreman wrote:
1) You are going after an easy target for not doing what they said they'd do (after they got some friction about it when they announced it, iirc?) And since you never really addressed the following: Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 03:30 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 03:21 Calix wrote:
And as a side note, how is being tryhard a scum tell? Because you're looking for an excuse to accuse somebody of being scum where no scum motive is present. Where is the scum motive in waffling over whether to post gifs or not? Show me how doing that helps scum or admit your case was ridiculous and maybe can talk.
It wasn't a case though. I never said there was scum motivation. I have stated this on multiple occasions so people need to actually read my posts. I'm not repeating myself again.
All I did was ask "yo why did you change your posting style from X pre-game posting style that you said you were doing?". I think this is a perfectly reasonable question since he...changed his posting style AFTER receiving his role so thus it had a chance of yielding AI information.
He didn't waffle over it and I didn't say it was scummy. I said it was illogical which isn't the same thing as scum-motivated. It means that I don't get why he did it. (I still don't but the actual reasoning is completely irrelevant so I don't want ExO to answer now)
You also have to take into account that I considered his behaviour anti-town. I don't see the problem with questioning a player in that category within the first few posts. It's the best time to clear up such matters, no?
I hope that clears up everything.
|
On November 03 2016 05:48 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:44 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:38 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 03:29 Foreman wrote:
1) You are going after an easy target for not doing what they said they'd do (after they got some friction about it when they announced it, iirc?) And since you never really addressed the following: On November 03 2016 03:30 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 03:21 Calix wrote:
And as a side note, how is being tryhard a scum tell? Because you're looking for an excuse to accuse somebody of being scum where no scum motive is present. Where is the scum motive in waffling over whether to post gifs or not? Show me how doing that helps scum or admit your case was ridiculous and maybe can talk. It wasn't a case though. I never said there was scum motivation. I have stated this on multiple occasions so people need to actually read my posts. I'm not repeating myself again.All I did was ask "yo why did you change your posting style from X pre-game posting style that you said you were doing?". I think this is a perfectly reasonable question since he...changed his posting style AFTER receiving his role so thus it had a chance of yielding AI information. He didn't waffle over it and I didn't say it was scummy. I said it was illogical which isn't the same thing as scum-motivated. It means that I don't get why he did it. (I still don't but the actual reasoning is completely irrelevant so I don't want ExO to answer now) You also have to take into account that I considered his behaviour anti-town. I don't see the problem with questioning a player in that category within the first few posts. It's the best time to clear up such matters, no? I hope that clears up everything. Well it looked stinted as hell, like you were setting up for an easy target. Where's this damning evidence against NU?
In his filter...which you could have looked at irregardless of your read on me.
Alternatively, it's in my filter. You can skip over Page 1 of my filter because it's pre-game stuff.
|
On November 03 2016 05:54 Foreman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:49 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:48 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 05:44 Calix wrote:On November 03 2016 05:38 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 03:29 Foreman wrote:
1) You are going after an easy target for not doing what they said they'd do (after they got some friction about it when they announced it, iirc?) And since you never really addressed the following: On November 03 2016 03:30 Foreman wrote:On November 03 2016 03:21 Calix wrote:
And as a side note, how is being tryhard a scum tell? Because you're looking for an excuse to accuse somebody of being scum where no scum motive is present. Where is the scum motive in waffling over whether to post gifs or not? Show me how doing that helps scum or admit your case was ridiculous and maybe can talk. It wasn't a case though. I never said there was scum motivation. I have stated this on multiple occasions so people need to actually read my posts. I'm not repeating myself again.All I did was ask "yo why did you change your posting style from X pre-game posting style that you said you were doing?". I think this is a perfectly reasonable question since he...changed his posting style AFTER receiving his role so thus it had a chance of yielding AI information. He didn't waffle over it and I didn't say it was scummy. I said it was illogical which isn't the same thing as scum-motivated. It means that I don't get why he did it. (I still don't but the actual reasoning is completely irrelevant so I don't want ExO to answer now) You also have to take into account that I considered his behaviour anti-town. I don't see the problem with questioning a player in that category within the first few posts. It's the best time to clear up such matters, no? I hope that clears up everything. Well it looked stinted as hell, like you were setting up for an easy target. Where's this damning evidence against NU? In his filter...which you could have looked at irregardless of your read on me. Alternatively, it's in my filter. You can skip over Page 1 of my filter because it's pre-game stuff. I don't share your interpretation of his post. "I said that" looks to me as if he's saying "no, I'm saying he's scummy"to what you simply referred to as illogical, as in he seems to equivocate logical fallacy with scumminess. If I'm wrong, so be it... but I don't think I am.
Are you referring to ExO or NU? I am assuming the former here.
Your post is confusing and I don't understand how you reached...whatever it is that you concluded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
